bigby. . host: finally, from "the boston globe" health insurers sue to raise rates.

it is tuesday, april 6. the mcclatchy newspapers say "the administration unveils the new nuclear policy." we want to know where you think. -- what you think. you can also send us a message via twitter. or you can send us an e-mail. this is what jonathan landay and margaret wright this morning. "president obama will reject the development rejectnew u.s. nuclear weapons and dial back current policy that allows the u.s. to use nuclear weapons in response to attacks by non- nuclear nations."

to help us get through little more of this, jonathan landay is on the phone. he is a mcclatchy newspapers senior national security correspondent. good morning. tell us how the administration will role of this policy? guest: i believe that it will be sort of a formal roll out with the president, secretary of state clinton, defense secretary gates, and believe it will be an in-depth briefing on the substance of the review at the pentagon. host: congress requires the

administration to release this type of nuclear posture review, is that correct? guest: yes, that is correct. this is the third since 1994. the one done by the clinton administration was not congressionally mandated. but the last two, the one by the bush administration, and this one are congressionally mandated. host: does that mean that congress will take some sort of action on this? or did they just lay out some requirement for the president? guest: it is substantially a report for congress but also for the american people on how the administration plans not only to structure american policy for nuclear weapons, but based on the policy the kind, the way the administration will deploy its weapons. the kind of force structure of the administration plans, as well as the money the

administration -- at least a policy the administration will pursue these heavy debt facilities -- the facilities, though labs. in the budget proposal that the president submitted to congress earlier this year is: 413% increase. up to $7 billion for what is known as the nuclear complex. the labs and other facilities that maintain and service the nuclear arsenal of the u.s. host: tells about the timing. the president has got a nuclear security summit in washington. he is also going to prague to address the issue. guest: that is correct. what we are seeing over the next month or so is really a major push by president obama and his

administration on the nuclear arms control front. it began with the region of the agreement last week, sorry, the week before, with russia on a new nuclear arms reduction treaty that will hold a both sides mandate modest cuts in strategic warheads in the systems that deliver them. then that feeds into the so- called nuclear posture review. on thursday the president goes to prague where he will sign the new agreement with the russian president the give -- medvedev, and also deliver a speech on the first anniversary of his previous speech. then there will be a summit of more than 40 world leaders here in washington on securing a vulnerable nuclear -- securing

vulnerable nuclear materials from that. then there will be an international meeting on reviewing the non-proliferation treaty. it is the keystone trudy internationally to control and curb the spread of nuclear weapons. that would be a conference aimed at strengthening the treaty. host: the official, formal world is supposed to be later today. it is leaking in many of the papers. has there been any response so far from countries overseas? guest: not that i can see. there has been an initial response from the arms control community. at least from what i have seen their very pleased with what the president's intent is to allow today. but the feeling now they're among arms controllers is that his policy does not go far enough. there may be some

disappointment. he has not changed u.s. policy to what is known as the no first use pledge. that the u.s. would not be the first to use nuclear weapons -- that was something the administration decided it would not go with. but i have not seen anything yet at this point in terms of an official response, simply because the president himself has not officially ruled out his review. host: all right, jonathan landay, thank you very much for being on the program this morning. more from the article. they write that the treaty is the cornerstone of the international system to spreacue spread of nuclear arms.

westchester, new york, carry on our line for democrats. what do you think about the obama policy? is it the right approach? -- carrie, on the line for democrats. caller: yes, rob, you are one of my favorites. i agree with the president's approach. i also think they put you on today to ask another one of the president's questions. that happens every other day. we should begin to look at other issues that are going on in the world, such as the israel

dominating what is going on with the palestinians. host: next up is lorraine in rutherford, michigan. caller: yes, i disagree with the lady who just called. i do not believe we should ever reduce nuclear capability. we could be attacked. personally, the russians are not to be trusted. what goes next? guns and everything? then we have no way to protect ourselves. i think we should explore different nuclear ideas, but not limit them or signed a treaty. as far as jerusalem, they are the only place we can put our stuff.

people are anti-is ridges like it says in the bible, regarding the last days. -- people are anti-israel, as it says in the bible regarding the last days. host: go ahead, next caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have tried, but never gotten through. the republicans need to get the prejudice out of the system and let this president do what he is trying to do. host: what do the republicans have to do with this announcement by the administration? caller: well, they just seem to want to mess up everything he does. they will not do anything. host: have you heard any response from the republicans about this so far? caller: yes, i watch you every

day. i listened to the one a while ago. host: in "the wall street journal" this morning -- the u.s. keeps first-strike strategy. jonathan and peter write that the new policy will narrow the new u.s. target, and for the first time make explicit the goal of making deterrence of a nuclear strike the sole objective of u.s. nuclear weapons. for the first time, the nation's complying with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations that attacked the u.s. or its allies with chemical or biological weapons will the longer be threatened with nuclear retaliation. but the president will make clear that they would face the prospect of a devastating conventional attack. they have a chart here with

international arsenals and the estimated number of strategic weapons. we take the next call from jeremy from nashville, tennessee. caller: devastating conventional attack? how will we pay for this? the nation is already bankrupt. i'm actually ashamed to be calling this morning because i read the report last night about this insane policy of this idiot, barack obama. i am ashamed for the first time in the history of my life to live in this country. the idiot who called before me, from kentucky, he would deserve to be annihilated in chemical attack. all this does is leave us vulnerable to our enemies. host: let me ask you this -- you do not think we have enough

weaponry stored away that if someone were to attack us that we could retaliate? caller: we have not used it so far against our enemies, have we? host: where do you think we could have used it? caller: first of all, in afghanistan. george bush did not have the testicular fortitude to use it against afghanistan. diid he? host: and what you think about president obama? caller: i saw his opening pitch of the washington senators game -- he throws like a girl. host: let's move on to florida with bruce. caller: thank you very much. i have to tell you that i am ashamed of the president. i honestly fear the amount of knowledge that he gains while he is in office.

i'm afraid that when he leaves office, who knows where that knowledge will go? where does the loyalties lie? is certainly not with the u.s. it seems to me that the president wants approval from everyone. every other country except for his own. he is going out there. he wants -- how do we say? a legacy. the legacy he once seems to be -- i don't know, that he was the greatest man on earth. host: how do you figure this announcement will play into his legacy, such that it is? caller: i think that his approval rating will go down here in the u.s. the liberals will play this up,

the extreme right. although they're not getting what they want, just because the woman to pretend that first no- strike law. -- just because they wanted him to put in the first no-strike law. host: we will leave it there. on the front page, the new nuclear policy takes the middle course. this will also describe the purpose as u.s. weapons being fundamentally for deterrence.

back to the phones. wisconsin, robert, on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i think our whole problem with the nuclear deal is when we give money to israel and let them build underground mass destruction weapons. now i'm not for iran. i am a muslim, not like cheney. i would say that if israel keeps

agitating, a war brings prosperity. host: so far, robert, there is nothing we have recorded that connects the president's policy to the u.s. relationship with israel -- how do you draw that line? guest: we're going through what germany did prior to the second world war. host: thanks for the call. mark, the line for republicans, of manhattan, new york. caller: this is the worst thing i have ever heard. for example, let's take right now -- iran does not have nuclear weapons. ok, hurry up, tried to obtain a bomb, said the dock here in this country, and we promise we will not retaliate with nuclear because you do not have nuclear weapons here.

-- set it off here in this country, and we promise not to retaliate. this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. i am devastated by the announcement. if iran were to attack us, would we give him sanctions for killing thousands here? because you do not have a nuclear weapon? you know that this man would not attack iran under any circumstances. host: let me read an article from the jump page -- "obama to limit scenarios in which the u.s. would employ nuclear weapons." they say that the most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with iran.

it goes on to say that he dodged when asked whether he shares the view of israel that a nuclear- capable iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons. what do you think about that? caller: you just said it -- he dodged the question. right now they do not have a weapon. they could attack our country. they do not have a weapon. and what will he do? they could set off any type of weapon, biological, chemical -- and what would you do? he is now called tied to his statement. he was sworn in to defend the country of the united states. host: david, on the line for democrats out of mount sterling, ky. caller: good morning there.

host: david, go ahead. caller: i am for our president 100%. i think he has done a wonderful job. all these people calling in there who are scared to death that they will get blown up tomorrow, that is the lack of faith -- the religious right there seem to think they are religious, but they're scared to death that they will get blown up. i would hate to claim to be a christian there and have no more faith than that. i would like to comment on another issue if you would let me. all right, the 25: miners that got blown up in the west virginia, -- the 25 coal miners to got blown up -- the very reason that they got some authority in coal mining is this

-- they are on union there. if that would have been a union mind, the union would have had safety inspectors and they could have shut it down until they fixed the violation. host: and we will leave it there. we're talking about the obama administration. are they taking the right approach to nuclear arms policy? we will continue that discussion. this is the "usa today" -- here it says that the czechs are torn over the u.s. nuclear treaty with russia. as obama returns, czechs differ over whether his conciliatory dialogue with their former occupier is dangerously naive or appreciabla praiseworthy step td global security.

the article goes on to say that the russian president tried unsuccessfully to get limits placed on the u.s. strategic missile defense in the treaty. the line for independents, not seville, tennessee. good morning. -- knoxville, tennessee. caller: yes, i believe obama has done a very good job. on the atomic weapons, according to that i don't know that if we would have dropped the bomb in world war ii --as horrific as it was, i think that we saved thousands of lives, not only americans, british and others. i think that it was the thing to do. host: in "the washington times"

as we continue the discussion we will take a look at some other stories. the chief of staff resigns from the rnc. mckay has resigned and will be replaced by leavitt, a former campaign aide to the embattled chairman michael steele. the wealthy veteran fund-raiser sam fox, unhappy with the negative publicity has also resigned as the top volunteer for the major donor fund-raising program. also, this morning, "the baltimore sun" has the story -- rivals gop group to compete for cash. michael steele is already under attack for his handling of party finances and lackluster fund-

raising. he is facing a new threat to his leadership. it is an independent gop group spearheaded by some party luminaries that will compete for campaign dollars. back to the phones. we're talking about the obama administration and its nuclear arms policy. nebraska, brian, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what is on your mind this morning? caller: i do not know. i think president obama should turn iran into a sheet of glass. host: why is that? caller: because it is either them or us. host: indiana, frances. caller: oh, president obama, i

am so proud of you, but what i want to tell you is that i heard a senator say on the senate floor when the bidding the farm bill that only six farmers in indiana got almost all the money from 55,000 -- now i want senator luger to stand at obama's side and tell the truth about these gigantic weapons that russia and the u.s. have, and 10,000 or more each host: what is the truth? caller: the truth is that we have weapons that are 1,000 tons > those used during the second world war, and all these weapons just sitting there. russia and the u.s. -- if they can agree to reduce those and make the world a little safer, i mean, we are so imperial lustis.

at least we have been very much so in the past. host: here in the headline, brown triggers the election with labor closing in on the tories. he announces the may 6 election day. prime minister gordon brown has nationally set the national election -- has set a national election for may 6. it is one of the least predictable in decades. he made the announcement after meeting with queen elizabeth ii who agreed to dissolve parliament to clear the way for the election. in an op-ed in this morning's " the financial times" and under this headlined "britain's election need not be a requiem" -- the natives can scarcely complain that the choice for voters on may 6 has often seen between competing visions of

misery -- back to the phones. pittsburgh, pa., paul, on the line for republicans. what do you think about the obama administration is in a clear policy? is it the right approach? caller: no, i don't think so. i served in the navy for 30 years, and served under several different commander in chief's. none of which ever announced to a potential adversary whether they would withhold the use of nuclear weapons. i just think it is the wrong- headed approach. i believe it is because of the fear of that use, but oftentimes serves as the deterrence. i think it is the wrong approach. i do believe if you have a

massive attack with other biological, chemical warfare, you have the potential to kill just as many as you could with a nuclear, a tactical weapon. therefore, i think it would be inappropriate response under certain circumstances. i believe it is probably just another subtle approach to try to get iran to not build nuclear weapons. in that case, it would fail. host: thanks for your call. in "the wall street journal" in the marketplace section -- one of several stories regarding toyota and its $16 million fine. they write that the proposed fine, the maximum allowed under law to the car maker, and far exceeding the previous record of $1 million, is the first linked to the recall of more than 8 million cars globally for the gas pedal and sudden-

acceleration problems of toyota. you can also see a similar story on the front page of "the financial times." back to the phones. pilot mountain, n.c., on the line for democrats. gary? what do you think about the obama administration said nuclear arms policy? caller: well, i like it. we are trying to live in a peaceful world. we cannot be peaceful if we're not going to treat everyone the same. host: